People want to influence one another and so governments do the same toward people.
Each deem to seize the influencing power in order for their ideologies being accepted. People want to influence those in other thoughts as well as divisions they can’t order and control.
Uncontrollably, the mob always want to control, and indeed influence, rules in the government and perhaps sometimes the other super natural thoughts above the actual-rule, and thus they certainly need some sort of thought in order to control.
Whatsoever the case could be, nobody is alone in this context, at least for a while, even when no one has the formal authority to achieve what is necessary, and not even with those who oblige to bow to each other.
Now, it is never an illusion that the actual order changes so fast and short (with no consensus on how long is short). It is also believed that nobody has ever had enough authority — everyone never have and never will in different context.
Personal life gets too complicated for an individual thus national rule is. Yet, it is possible to have enough ideological influence to make things happen and be as normal as what normal looks like.
Sometimes, as a matter of fact, the difference is so great that what the public or government’s rule have little to offer for the people it had has thought.
The popular rule in the contrary wants to have the influence and have different goals and objectives from the rule itself, leading to different priorities and possibly unidentified agendas.
Therefore, not everyone can find common ground to this notion. By their social and folkloric roles, some people will not care about what they are trying to accomplish, because they have such different expectations among each other. Sometimes they just have completely incompatible personal and political goals.
The people that the rule wants to influence have incompatible ideological approach to a specific agenda at stake. Those in the government roles may also be held accountable for and can reward themselves for things they believe no any alternative can do.
Therefore, the way they measure things now here may leave them with their own leeway.
This issue becomes more complicated than normal when the people the rule wants to influence and perceive them-self as rivals, or feel competitive in their diverse psychological makeup in position and don’t want to succeed one from another.
If ones succession will be seen as somehow interfering with their ambition, they may not be able to get help even when each know it would be good for the big nation.
Also, they might have such strong personal animosity toward each other or ones area that it clouds their judgment.
Thus, it can be hard to get what a ‘winning’ ideology need for doing the good value it can add. Occasionally, neither rule nor rivals can’t overcome these ideological and psychological makeup and break fences of barriers, no matter how valuable that could be. However, I assume that more often seen from what had has been around, the issues are from within.
A layman may not has the needed knowledge of the situation and skills to move the resistant body, or may not have the required attitudes and courage but a tricky situation could overtake everything.
There should never be lack of knowledge how to go about influencing ideologically when there are objective difficulties. As instinctive as some kinds of ideological influence are, many people do not have a very conscious idea of how to go about it when the other person or group is not responsive.
They don’t think of ideal influence as a kind of exchange, and don’t understand how important it is to deliver something of value to the other person.
An increasing number of sophisticated social psychological cultures should be fostered in an open style and encourage the confronting of differences of all kinds. People should be expected to let one another know what is on their minds, otherwise anyone who doesn’t speak up is considered to be weak and unduly constrained.
And when someone is unhappy with what a rule has done or said, he or she takes a different approach as per their consciousness of the mass around them, then they would take a face to face approach using as much heat as is felt. I assume such popular approach without single destruction are expressive and animated.
Therefore, this would help to settle problems quickly and everyone moves on to the next issues – perhaps a common issue of aspiration.
One should avoid fears of direct discussion for the perceived and existed relationship problems of any kind. However, there could be many reasons both from the listener’s resistance that people are reluctant to raise relationship problems directly with a difficult ally.
Concern about hurting one another, fear of retaliation, worries about possible embarrassment in future dealings, fear that the initiator is really the one at fault and will be told that in no uncertain terms—or just plain dislike of unpleasant encounters and mostly losing power of influence toward a perceived goal — could be reasons.
The question each must answer is whether the potential pain caused by an attempt to tell the ally their concerns is worse than the very real and present pain of continuing on in an unsatisfactory way.
I suppose that the actual confrontation is seldom as bad as anticipated; therefore, its better by far to encourage directness. Indeed, as witnessed from history, there could be risk in putting everything on the table but there are also risks in letting tension, mistrust, and animosity build among each other.
Unaddressed ideological relationship issues have a way of exploding at the most awkward moments possible. Just because the risk of doing nothing is not immediately visible does not mean that it isn’t just as real as the risk they take when they confront the problem. Furthermore, dealing directly with such ideology problems tends to create faster and more complete resolution.
Kiram Tadesse is a Consultant and Rising Strategist specialized in policy, communication, development, governance, youth and SDGs, children and women. He is also Producer and Presenter of a radio show called The Afro Desk on 105.3 AFRO FM.
He seeks to understand the impact of economic, political and social/psychological issues from national to international perspectives. He can be reached at @kiram_T